Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many law students in Canada, the idea of the rule of law is associated with the names of Professor A.V. Dicey, Justice Ivan Rand, and the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis . It is common for students to read excerpts from Dicey’s Law of the Constitution on the rule of law, and then to examine how the rule of law is, as Rand stated in Roncarelli , “a fundamental postulate of our constitutional structure.” Indeed, Roncarelli marked a point in time, fifty years ago, at which the academic expression “the rule of law” became a meaningful part of the legal discourse of judges and lawyers in Canada. In this article, the author considers the relationship between the rule of law as an academic or conceptual idea and the rule of law as a practical or doctrinal idea. A distinction is drawn between two traditions of theorizing about the rule of law, which are labelled “legality as order” and “legality as reason”. The author then reconsiders the views of both Dicey and Rand and argues that both advanced the idea of legality as reason. The author concludes that, although Canadian judges now tend to emphasize legality as order, we are better placed to understand the special features of constitutionalism in Canada if we remember that the rule of law has, both conceptually and doctrinally, another dimension—that which is associated with the idea of “legality as reason”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".